THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SEROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 9992/12 and 5 others -see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 May 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Serov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Karen Reid Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 March 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90‑94, ECHR 2000‑XI, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139‑65, 10 January 2012). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see, amongst many authorities, Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, § 39, 7 April 2005, and Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 145‑47 and 149).
8. In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others, cited above, and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, §§ 54‑64, 12 November 2015, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. In applications nos. 9992/12 and 3330/16, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC] (no. 5826/03, §§ 139-49, 22 May 2012, concerning the reasons for and length of the pretrial detention) and Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 100-19, 10 January 2012, pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complaint about the conditions of detention in Russia).
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession, to its case‑law and the long delay for some of the applicants in filing the application, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 May 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Karen ReidLuis López Guerra
RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Sq. m. per inmate
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
9992/12
14/02/2012
Aleksandr Vasilyevich Serov
02/09/1954
Visentin Mjriana
Lainate
IZ-2 Irkutsk
05/02/2011 to
28/10/2011
8 months and 24 days
20 inmates
1.2 m²
1 toilet
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of beds in the cell, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air, no hot/cold water, lack of (adequate) heating
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention
6,500
12214/13
28/01/2013
Vladimir Mikhaylovich Grechushkin
28/03/1977
Briceac Andrei
Chisinau
IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region
13/07/2010 to
28/01/2013
2 years and
6 months and 16 days
4.1 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease
5,000
54965/15
26/10/2015
Pavel Vladimirovich Gogolitsyn
05/07/1987
IZ 47/1
St Petersburg
20/07/2015 to
02/10/2015
2 months and 13 days
2.6 m²
lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air
5,000
3330/16
27/12/2015
Yuriy Vyacheslavovich Tikhonov
17/01/1967
Gordeyeva Margarita Vladimirovna
Astrakhan
IK-2 Astrakhan
10/02/2008
pending
More than
8 years and
9 months and 26 days
165 inmates
1.33 m²
4 toilets
overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of (sufficient) natural light, insufficient number of beds in the cell, lack of (adequate) heating
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
8,750
19172/16
23/03/2016
Arkadiy Viktorovich Fedotov
10/06/1987
Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Kostroma
IK-1 Kostroma
01/02/2010 to
13/11/2015
5 years and
9 months and 13 days
100 inmates
2 m²
lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air, overcrowding, poor conditions of work - overcrowding, lack of light and 12 hours working day
5,000
21267/16
05/04/2016
Yuliya Yuryevna Tryapichnikova
13/10/1985
Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Kostroma
IK-3 Kostroma Region
23/05/2006 to
04/03/2016
9 years and
9 months and 11 days
1.6 m²
overcrowding, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air, infestation of the cell with rats
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy